How does the USPTO evaluate the nature of a transformation in patent claims?
The USPTO evaluates the nature of a transformation in patent claims by considering several factors. According to MPEP 2106.05(c), examiners should consider the following: The particularity or generality of the transformation: More specific transformations are more likely to be meaningful. The degree to which the recited article is particular: A transformation applied to a specific…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate “sufficient cause” for time extensions in inter partes reexamination?
The USPTO evaluates “sufficient cause” for time extensions in inter partes reexamination by balancing two factors: Providing the patent owner a fair opportunity to respond Adhering to the statutory requirement for special dispatch (35 U.S.C. 314(c)) The MPEP states: “Evaluation of whether “sufficient cause” has been shown for an extension must be made by balancing…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate petitions for stay in patent term extension applications?
The USPTO evaluates petitions for stay in patent term extension applications based on the standard of “good and sufficient cause.” According to MPEP 2765: “The standard for granting requests under both 37 CFR 1.103 and 37 CFR 1.314 is good and sufficient cause.” The USPTO considers several factors when evaluating these petitions: The nature and…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle predictable versus unpredictable arts in written description evaluations?
How does the USPTO handle predictable versus unpredictable arts in written description evaluations? The USPTO’s approach to evaluating written descriptions differs between predictable and unpredictable arts. According to MPEP 2163.02: “The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate functional claim language?
The USPTO evaluates functional claim language based on several factors outlined in MPEP 2173.05(g). These factors include: Whether the specification provides a clear and definite description of the claimed function Whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification Whether the claim provides clear…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the credibility of an asserted utility?
The USPTO evaluates the credibility of an asserted utility based on the presumption that an applicant’s assertion of utility is true, unless there is reason to doubt it. The MPEP states: As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate “reasonable diligence” in filing a reissue application?
The USPTO evaluates “reasonable diligence” in filing a reissue application on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each situation. According to MPEP 1403: “What constitutes reasonable diligence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking all the facts and circumstances into account.” Factors that the USPTO may consider include: The complexity of the…
Read MoreWhat constitutes ‘excusable delay’ in patent diligence cases?
What constitutes ‘excusable delay’ in patent diligence cases? ‘Excusable delay’ in patent diligence cases refers to justifiable reasons for gaps in an inventor’s work towards reducing an invention to practice. The MPEP 715.07(a) provides guidance on this matter: “In determining the diligence of an inventor, all the evidence must be considered. The mere allegation that…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle conflicting evidence in patent applications?
How does the USPTO handle conflicting evidence in patent applications? The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling conflicting evidence in patent applications. According to MPEP 716.01(c), “Where the evidence is conflicting, the examiner must weigh the probative value of each piece of evidence.” The process for handling conflicting evidence includes: Evaluation of credibility: Examiners assess…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate evidence of unexpected results in patent applications?
The USPTO evaluates evidence of unexpected results in patent applications based on several factors. According to MPEP 716.02: Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected.…
Read More